Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1864 (JHR)

Punit Rana v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-08-14

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

body2018
JUDGMENT Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - Heard Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Apurv, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: "(a) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s), or a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the order dated 09.02.2004 (Annexure-3), issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Hazaribag (Respondent No. 4), whereby & where under without properly considering the facts, materials & evidences on record the Learned S.D.O. Sadar, Hazaribag has erroneously been pleased to hold that Raiyati status cannot be granted to the petitioner, in view of the fact that the petitioner has failed to produce relevant documents, which is wholly arbitrary, unjust & unsustainable in the eye of law. (b) For issuance of an appropriate writ (s)/ order(s) / direction(s), or a writ in the nature of Mandamus, commanding upon and directing the respondents to accept the cess & rent with regard to the land in question and grant rent receipt, in the facts & circumstances of the present case." 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had purchased the property involved in this case bearing land of Khata No. 26, Thana No. 84, Plot No. 794, which according to the petitioner was recorded in the name of Saryu Rana and Others and after their death, it devolved upon their successors. Accordingly, 26 and 2/3 decimals of land fell in the name of Basudeo Rana and Ramchandra Rana, sons of Saryu Rana who sold the property by registered sale-deed dated 18.11.1986 in favour of the petitioner. 5. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that a Raiyati Manyata case was initiated in connection with the property and by the impugned order, the claim of grant of Raiyati Manyata to the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the property was entered in Register-II for the first time only pursuant to the sale-deed dated 18.11.1986. 6. He further submits that it has also been recorded in the impugned order that the Khatiyan of the property was found to be torn. 6. He further submits that it has also been recorded in the impugned order that the Khatiyan of the property was found to be torn. He refers to Annexure- 4, which is a response by the Circle Officer pursuant to an application filed under Right to Information, wherein this property has been said to be recorded in the name of Bandhan, Saryu, Radhu Mistri son of Daso Mistri and he submits that on the basis of those information, there can be no doubt that Saryu Rana was the recorded tenant. He submits that irrespective of the fact as to whether Saryu Rana paid rent to the State or not, he had right to sell the property. Accordingly, the counsel submits that the impugned order in connection with the rejection of Raiyati Manyata of the petitioner is fit to be set-aside. 7. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- State submits that there is nothing on record to show that the property in question was recorded in the name of Saryu Rana and it cannot be said that Saryu Rana and Saryu, as mentioned in the reply given by the Circle Officer under Right to Information, are one and the same person. 8. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the materials on record, this Court finds that admittedly the Khatiyan in connection with the property is torn and accordingly, it cannot be seen from the Khatiyan as to who is the recorded tenant. 9. Further, the property was entered in Register-II in connection with payment of rent for the first time pursuant to the registered sale-deed of the year 1986, which indicates that the rent receipts were not being issued in the name of the so-called recorded tenant. From the perusal of the information which has been furnished by the Circle Officer under Right to Information as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition, the name of persons in whose favour the property is said to have been recorded includes one Saryu, but there is nothing on record to suggest that this Saryu is the same person as Saryu Rana, as claimed by the petitioner. 10. This Court also finds that in the impugned order dated 09.02.2004, a proceeding for cancellation of Jamabandi has been indicated and contemplated and it is not clear whether any proceeding has been initiated or not. 11. 10. This Court also finds that in the impugned order dated 09.02.2004, a proceeding for cancellation of Jamabandi has been indicated and contemplated and it is not clear whether any proceeding has been initiated or not. 11. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance of this case, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. However, it will be open to the petitioner to get his right, title and interest declared through a competent court of civil jurisdiction. If such proceeding is initiated, then the matter regarding Raiyati Manyata will also be subject to decision of the civil court and impugned order passed in the Raiyati Manyata case as well as this order may not prejudice the case of the parties in the civil suit. 12. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is dismissed.